4 ms·

Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares. I'd agree, but de facto is not de jure. And if we're going to make them into public

Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares. I'd agree, but de facto is not de jure. And if we're going to make them into public spaces legally, it's certainly not going to happen through an executive order. It would require an act of Congress, similar to the restrictions and obligations placed on broadcasters.

dnautics 6y ago
By the same token though, as per the tweets assertion (I have not read the EO personally) it looks like a good chunk of the teeth of this bill is "preventing the government from advertising on a platform that doesn't X", not "creating legal consequences for a company that doesn't X", which is... Not at all the same.
- gowld 6y ago
  They are in part the same, as the Supreme Court has ruled. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Ag... As HN is fond of saying, judges are smart enough to see through attempts to hack the law.
  - dnautics 6y ago
    And yet taking a person across state lines to kill them in a different jurisdiction is federal crime thanks to the interstate commerce clause.
Reelin 6y ago
Except that SCOTUS has already at least flirted with the idea (see Packingham v. North Carolina, 2017). Also the executive order in question doesn't have anything to do with public spaces but rather Section 230 protections; the argument is that fact checking is a form of editorializing.
- SilasX 6y ago
  See also this HN discussion about a case[1], where a judge ruled that Trump can't block people on Twitter. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17135945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17135945 [1] Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 17-cv-5205, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    It seems significant that Twitter wasn't a party to that case. People seem to be enthusiastically conflating it with some sort of ruling on what Twitter can or must do. I'm not sure if you are, but even bringing it up worries me.
- jklein11 6y ago
  I think it is pretty clear that fact checking is a form of editorializing. It seems that Section 230 was being applied even if the intermediary was editorializing the content.
- vannevar 6y ago
  Both Packingham and Knight involve government action to deny others access to social media. They don't involve any obligations of social media sites themselves to provide access.
dexen 6y ago
>>Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares. >I'd agree, but de facto is not de jure. In 2018 there was a decision of a district court[1], subsequently reaffirmed by the Courts of Appeal, that the President's twitter account is a "designated public forum". This was widely reported due to it's "Trump cannot block other users" aspect, but might have interesting bearing here. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_First_Amendment_Institute_v._Trump#Later_developments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_First_Amendment_Institu...
- perl4ever 6y ago
  It's disturbing to me that people have picked this up and are running with it as saying something about Twitter and its rights or responsibilities. It appears to me that was simply about the rights and responsibilities of public officials whatever (private) means they use to communicate. From the previous thread: "Just because Twitter allows people to block stuff, doesn't mean Trump gets to block stuff. In a "normal" government, they'd pick a vendor with software that would let them make official policy statements in a way that complied with the laws around people having the right to reach out to their government officials. Just 'cause twitter's software lets him do something doesn't make actually doing that thing legal, moral, or ethical. This judgement makes perfect sense and is completely reasonable when you remember that technology is a mere tool designed to serve humans. Just cause you can do something in a tool doesn't make it right."
SiVal 6y ago
I agree that at least ultimately Congress and/or the courts need to consider the larger issue. Trump isn't demanding a retraction of a single comment, because the fact check itself isn't the problem. It's a symptom. It's just a "straw that broke the camel's back". People who insist on analyzing the straw rather than the whole load are not discussing the real issue. The real issue is the extent to which Big Tech platforms can tilt a playing field that a billion people play on. Whether tilting the field to favor their own products, as the EU courts ruled, or their own political preferences or whatever else they want, heaven help you if you are playing against their favored team and have to play on their field. Death by a thousand bad ref calls. Big Tech is big because of the network effects on the internet, meaning that for many things you want to do, there are lots of choices in theory but just one in practice. They own the whole league. You play on their tilted field or you "can always go start your own" league and play alone. (Google started their own FaceBook. Microsoft started their own phone OS. Now you go start your own Twitter.) Congress and the courts need to look at these massive network-effects platforms that are claiming the rights of players and non-players and the responsibilities of neither.
gowld 6y ago
"town squares" are not law. Private property is sometimes public space, especially in Twitter's home of California. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....

dnautics 6y ago

By the same token though, as per the tweets assertion (I have not read the EO personally) it looks like a good chunk of the teeth of this bill is "preventing the government from advertising on a platform that doesn't X", not "creating legal consequences for a company that doesn't X", which is... Not at all the same.

gowld 6y ago
They are in part the same, as the Supreme Court has ruled. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Ag... As HN is fond of saying, judges are smart enough to see through attempts to hack the law.
- dnautics 6y ago
  And yet taking a person across state lines to kill them in a different jurisdiction is federal crime thanks to the interstate commerce clause.

Reelin 6y ago

Except that SCOTUS has already at least flirted with the idea (see Packingham v. North Carolina, 2017). Also the executive order in question doesn't have anything to do with public spaces but rather Section 230 protections; the argument is that fact checking is a form of editorializing.

SilasX 6y ago
See also this HN discussion about a case[1], where a judge ruled that Trump can't block people on Twitter. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17135945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17135945 [1] Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 17-cv-5205, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
- perl4ever 6y ago
  It seems significant that Twitter wasn't a party to that case. People seem to be enthusiastically conflating it with some sort of ruling on what Twitter can or must do. I'm not sure if you are, but even bringing it up worries me.
jklein11 6y ago
I think it is pretty clear that fact checking is a form of editorializing. It seems that Section 230 was being applied even if the intermediary was editorializing the content.
vannevar 6y ago
Both Packingham and Knight involve government action to deny others access to social media. They don't involve any obligations of social media sites themselves to provide access.

dexen 6y ago

>>Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares. >I'd agree, but de facto is not de jure. In 2018 there was a decision of a district court[1], subsequently reaffirmed by the Courts of Appeal, that the President's twitter account is a "designated public forum". This was widely reported due to it's "Trump cannot block other users" aspect, but might have interesting bearing here. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_First_Amendment_Institute_v._Trump#Later_developments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_First_Amendment_Institu...

perl4ever 6y ago
It's disturbing to me that people have picked this up and are running with it as saying something about Twitter and its rights or responsibilities. It appears to me that was simply about the rights and responsibilities of public officials whatever (private) means they use to communicate. From the previous thread: "Just because Twitter allows people to block stuff, doesn't mean Trump gets to block stuff. In a "normal" government, they'd pick a vendor with software that would let them make official policy statements in a way that complied with the laws around people having the right to reach out to their government officials. Just 'cause twitter's software lets him do something doesn't make actually doing that thing legal, moral, or ethical. This judgement makes perfect sense and is completely reasonable when you remember that technology is a mere tool designed to serve humans. Just cause you can do something in a tool doesn't make it right."

SiVal 6y ago

I agree that at least ultimately Congress and/or the courts need to consider the larger issue. Trump isn't demanding a retraction of a single comment, because the fact check itself isn't the problem. It's a symptom. It's just a "straw that broke the camel's back". People who insist on analyzing the straw rather than the whole load are not discussing the real issue. The real issue is the extent to which Big Tech platforms can tilt a playing field that a billion people play on. Whether tilting the field to favor their own products, as the EU courts ruled, or their own political preferences or whatever else they want, heaven help you if you are playing against their favored team and have to play on their field. Death by a thousand bad ref calls. Big Tech is big because of the network effects on the internet, meaning that for many things you want to do, there are lots of choices in theory but just one in practice. They own the whole league. You play on their tilted field or you "can always go start your own" league and play alone. (Google started their own FaceBook. Microsoft started their own phone OS. Now you go start your own Twitter.) Congress and the courts need to look at these massive network-effects platforms that are claiming the rights of players and non-players and the responsibilities of neither.

gowld 6y ago

"town squares" are not law. Private property is sometimes public space, especially in Twitter's home of California. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....